Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

[U] Commonwealth v. Torres

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

February 28, 2014

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee
v.
GEORGE ANTHONY TORRES, III, Appellant

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 12, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No.: CP-23-CR-0003479-2010

BEFORE: GANTMAN, J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J. [*]

MEMORANDUM

PLATT, J.

Appellant, George Anthony Torres, III, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following the revocation of his probation. Specifically, he challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. We affirm.

On August 30, 2010, Appellant entered into a negotiated guilty plea to selling a firearm to an ineligible transferee, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6111(g)(2). The court sentenced Appellant to a term of probation of thirty-six months. On October 4, 2012, Appellant pleaded guilty to attempted possession of fentanyl in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and served a sentence of five months' incarceration.

On June 12, 2013, the trial court conducted a Gagnon II[1] hearing and found Appellant in violation of the condition of his probation that he comply with municipal, county, state, and federal laws, because of his federal conviction. The court revoked Appellant's probation and sentenced him to not less than twenty-four nor more than forty-eight months' incarceration.

Appellant filed a motion to modify and reduce sentence, which the trial court denied on June 27, 2013. Appellant timely appealed on July 11, 2013. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 708(E).[2]

Appellant raises two questions for our review:
[I.] Whether the [trial c]ourt erred and violated [Appellant's] rights when it failed to place adequate and proper reasons for the sentence on the record at the time of sentencing as required?
[II.] Whether the judgment of sentence imposed herein should be vacated since it was unduly harsh and excessive under the circumstances of this case?

(Appellant's Brief, at 5).

Our review is guided by the following principles:
The imposition of sentence following the revocation of probation is vested within the sound discretion of the trial court, which, absent an abuse of that discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal. An abuse of discretion is more than an error in judgment-a sentencing court has not abused its discretion unless the record discloses that the judgment ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.